From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: Ethernet API - multiple post-RX-burst callbacks' run-order is opposite to their add-order Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:02:13 +0200 Message-ID: <4695548.DNsLn0eCMG@xps13> References: <5006330.bOZQCtd0U5@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: "Mcnamara, John" Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C5EBC32E for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:03:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so16379607wig.0 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:03:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2015-07-10 13:52, Mcnamara, John: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > If the patch is accepted I'll add a note to the release notes also. > > > > Why not doing the release notes change atomicly in the same patch? > > Mainly, because there isn't currently a clear place to do that in the > release notes. I could change the "New Features" section to "New Features > in 2.0" and then add a "New Features in 2.1". Or perhaps this needs to go > into a "Changed Features in 2.1" section. If you have a suggestion I'll > follow it. I think we should reset "new features" at the beginning of the release cycle. Maybe that the "supported features" section needs a refresh also. > And I support your previous suggestion of updating the release notes > in patchsets. That would make things easier for the release notes > maintainers (me and you mainly). You mean asking to every developers to update the release notes? Just to be sure we are on the same line. > Perhaps I'll kick off a separate thread of discussion on refactoring > the release notes to make them more useful and easier to update. OK thanks